politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit looks set to be the biggest non-election political betting even market ever
Lots of bookies of different sorts have ranges of markets on Brexit from PaddyPower’s “What foodstuffs will be rationed first in 2019?” to the above bet on whether or not the UK will leave the EU on March 29th.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
You are playing up their influence. They are invited onto especially the technical committees but are excluded from the latter stages of the actual rule making. They have input but that is all. It is not binding or mandatory or anything else. Try selling that to the British Public. They will think you are having a laugh. Not able to vote on the final version of the rules? You must be kidding. Is what they will say.
And rightly so. Although of course I'd take Norway now given where we are. Sadly it doesn't seem likely so these discussions are moot.
And of course being rule takers and having no final say is something that anyone could have said would be the outcome of us voting to leave the EU and now you are citing that as a best case.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
You are playing up their influence. They are invited onto especially the technical committees but are excluded from the latter stages of the actual rule making. They have input but that is all. It is not binding or mandatory or anything else. Try selling that to the British Public. They will think you are having a laugh. Not able to vote on the final version of the rules? You must be kidding. Is what they will say.
And rightly so. Although of course I'd take Norway now given where we are. Sadly it doesn't seem likely so these discussions are moot.
And of course being rule takers and having no final say is something that anyone could have said would be the outcome of us voting to leave the EU and now you are citing that as a best case.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.
It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.
It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I wouldn't give up on Norway if I were you. Michael Gove likes Norway and he is going to be strategic supremo on the trade talks, once this withdrawal agreement gets ratified and we leave.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
I doubt this is Brexit-related. Most of Dyson's business is in Asia. What it does show, though, is that businesses will locate where it suits them best - as we will certainly find out once we are out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details.
We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.
As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
They probably wouldn't need to relocate if we had been able to form free trade links in Asia rather than having been stuck in the backwards looking EU for the past 40 years.
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details.
We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.
As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
I doubt this is Brexit-related. Most of Dyson's business is in Asia. What it does show, though, is that businesses will locate where it suits them best - as we will certainly find out once we are out of the Single Market and Customs Union.
They were doing so whilst we were inside as well. Except they were doing it with EU money to help the moves.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.
To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.
Nor are they subject to the ECJ.
Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.
It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
So you're happy to abolish the single market?
Yes. Or rather it doesn't bother me either way. 93% of the world is not in the single market and I do far more business outside the SM than I do inside.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.
To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
Should we really expect anything else from a nation descended from criminals?
Australia has called into question the UK’s hopes of joining a Pacific trade bloc, which had been considered by Theresa May to be a major post-Brexit opportunity over the coming years.
Simon Birmingham, the Australian trade minister, said: “The UK is some distance from the Pacific, the last time I checked.” He was speaking on a trip to London, where he yesterday met Liam Fox, Britain’s international trade secretary.
The prime minister and Dr Fox have repeatedly cited the 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), with members including Australia, Canada, Japan and Mexico, as a possible target for the UK after it leaves the European Union.
However, Mr Birmingham appeared to pour cold water on such aspirations, suggesting that neighbouring countries would be prioritised instead.
He told an Australia-UK Chamber of Commerce event, in comments first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: “I do think that, from the feedback of the other TPP nations, there is still a view of: let’s see the initial 11 [nations] all get through their ratification process, all become party to it, let’s perhaps deal with some of the other nations of interest in the Pacific region.”
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
Hopefully they will have four or five types of UKIP to choose from, just as looks looming in P'Boro
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
Theresa May is set to reject Tory calls for her to give her ministers and MPs a free vote on an amendment to the Brexit motion being debated next week intended to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, government sources have indicated
You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.
Hmmm........
No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
A Polish govt source shots this down immediately saying Britain's withdrawal from the EU without an agreement is the worst possible scenario for Brexit
Adds Poland would evaluate any A50 motion if/when it comes from the UK govt, but would need to have a clear plan of what's next
You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.
Hmmm........
No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.
You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.
Hmmm........
No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
The people in Northern Ireland want a backstop. A backstop has no material affect on the vast majority of people in Britain. It should be the easiest deal in history to do.
Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?
Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.
So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.
To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
Um No. A few members of their coalition government who belong to a rampantly pro EU party which is desperate for Norway to join the EU calls it Fax diplomacy. The rest of the country are very clear it is a far superior position compared to EU membership which is why they currently reject the EU by massive majorities.
You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.
Hmmm........
No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.
With EU blessing.
???
Each EU member state has its own customs territory already and together they form a customs union. We would just do a bilateral deal to treat Northern Ireland as part of Ireland's customs territory, plus mirror their regulations to the extent needed to avoid a hard border.
He is talking rubbish. There is not a single word in the GFA that refers to the border and its status. There may be good reasons for not having a hard border (actually there are good reasons) but they have nothing at all to do with the GFA. He is just clutching at straws.
Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?
Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.
So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
By chance I found a load of candles at the bottom of a drawer just yesterday. So in one respect at least I am prepared for no deal. Just the food, bottled water and shotgun to go....
Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
A thought that's been debunked a million times since 2016. FTAs do not deliver frictionless trade.
Depends what's in them. The SM is just a high powered FTA.
Ok, so we stay in the single market and call it an FTA.
If we stay in the CU, agree not to vary our standards and regulations out of step with the EU and accept mutual recognition of regulations by equivalent bodies the argument about whether we are in our out of the SM may become somewhat Jesuitical. And not very interesting either.
You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.
Hmmm........
No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.
With EU blessing.
???
Each EU member state has its own customs territory already and together they form a customs union. We would just do a bilateral deal to treat Northern Ireland as part of Ireland's customs territory, plus mirror their regulations to the extent needed to avoid a hard border.
When you say 'we' that has to mean the UK, then. Or else, as others point out, it is just the backstop with a different formal counterparty.
Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.
To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
Um No. A few members of their coalition government who belong to a rampantly pro EU party which is desperate for Norway to join the EU calls it Fax diplomacy. The rest of the country are very clear it is a far superior position compared to EU membership which is why they currently reject the EU by massive majorities.
He is talking rubbish. There is not a single word in the GFA that refers to the border and its status. There may be good reasons for not having a hard border (actually there are good reasons) but they have nothing at all to do with the GFA. He is just clutching at straws.
Apart from the words which predicate the GFA on EU membership. The level of economic integration provided for by the EU is implicit which is why it was unnecessary for the GFA to talk about the border directly.
Comments
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233
Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
What are the odds that the government will be rationing dog, rat, water, firewood, and dung?
I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).
Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who
dislike foreignersvoted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456
I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.
And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
It'll be one of those things that will always appear on a DBS check for him.
And rightly so. Although of course I'd take Norway now given where we are. Sadly it doesn't seem likely so these discussions are moot.
And of course being rule takers and having no final say is something that anyone could have said would be the outcome of us voting to leave the EU and now you are citing that as a best case.
No Good Brie!!!
The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.
Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
What Americans like to search/view on Pornhub.
and
https://www.iflscience.com/technology/these-maps-show-the-most-popular-porn-searches-in-each-us-state/
It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.
So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details.
We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.
As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
Will it be known as the fap fee? The tallywhacker tax? The lust levy?
Edited extra bit: and will the construction project be known as the Wanker's Wall?
To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
When facts change, opinions change as well.
Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
Australia has called into question the UK’s hopes of joining a Pacific trade bloc, which had been considered by Theresa May to be a major post-Brexit opportunity over the coming years.
Simon Birmingham, the Australian trade minister, said: “The UK is some distance from the Pacific, the last time I checked.” He was speaking on a trip to London, where he yesterday met Liam Fox, Britain’s international trade secretary.
The prime minister and Dr Fox have repeatedly cited the 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), with members including Australia, Canada, Japan and Mexico, as a possible target for the UK after it leaves the European Union.
However, Mr Birmingham appeared to pour cold water on such aspirations, suggesting that neighbouring countries would be prioritised instead.
He told an Australia-UK Chamber of Commerce event, in comments first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: “I do think that, from the feedback of the other TPP nations, there is still a view of: let’s see the initial 11 [nations] all get through their ratification process, all become party to it, let’s perhaps deal with some of the other nations of interest in the Pacific region.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australia-pours-water-on-uk-trade-bloc-hopes-5jl0gk522
But, he's a clever man, a QC.
Hmmm........
Theresa May is set to reject Tory calls for her to give her ministers and MPs a free vote on an amendment to the Brexit motion being debated next week intended to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, government sources have indicated
https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1087747596934893569
Adds Poland would evaluate any A50 motion if/when it comes from the UK govt, but would need to have a clear plan of what's next
With EU blessing.
???
So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1087666955232862208
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/20/youll-hate-it-why-the-norway-option-amounts-to-self-inflicted-subservience-to-the-eu/